Wright Amendment

[funguy2]

I'm not even sure that the City of Dallas could have legally forced Southwest to sign such an agreement without the acquiescence of the Federal government.

[post="260662"][/post]​

Well... they seemed to get all of the other carriers to sign on to DFW. You are saying that they would have no legal precedence to require, as part of a lease at DAL in 1970 or 1971 a clause which would have required the move to DFW along with the others? Seems to me that this should have occured to prevent this whole mess.

It is interesting to me, that, according to your statements, an airport operator cannot close an airport to commercial airlines, and still operate it as a GA/reliever airport. It would seem to me that Van Nys, CA and Teterboro, NJ ought to have some kind of, even if limited, commercial airline service, and yet they don't. Why is that? No terminal facilities? No airline wants to try to add service? Something else?

It seems wasteful to me to close AUS (Mueller) and DEN (Stapleton) to ALL aircraft on the basis of airline competition/federal funding. While I understand that these cities were probably trying to avoid the DFW/DAL problem, those runways, FBO's, and other facilities would be able to support the new airports by relieving congestion, or future congestion. This seems like quite a waste to me to just rip them up entirely.

 

[sfb]

You are saying that they would have no legal precedence to require, as part of a lease at DAL in 1970 or 1971 a clause which would have required the move to DFW along with the others?

I am saying exactly that. The proprietary rights of the airport operator are fairly limited unless Federal regulations provide otherwise.

It is interesting to me, that, according to your statements, an airport operator cannot close an airport to commercial airlines, and still operate it as a GA/reliever airport. It would seem to me that Van Nys, CA and Teterboro, NJ ought to have some kind of, even if limited, commercial airline service, and yet they don't. Why is that? No terminal facilities? No airline wants to try to add service? Something else?

You hit it with your first guess -- no terminal facilities. I'm not sure if you remember the hue and cry made over Shuttle America going into Hanscom Field (BED) in the Boston suburbs; the problem is that Massport had no authority to prohibit commercial service at the airport. TEB and VNY don't have adequate terminal facilities, and TEB may also have a weight restriction on its runways which prohibits anything as large as a 737 (I can't recall if the BBJ can go into TEB). I also suspect that the PANYNJ and LAWA (respectively) would refuse to lease the necessary property to build terminal facilities, given the NIMBY outcry that would ensue.

It seems wasteful to me to close AUS (Mueller) and DEN (Stapleton) to ALL aircraft on the basis of airline competition/federal funding. While I understand that these cities were probably trying to avoid the DFW/DAL problem, those runways, FBO's, and other facilities would be able to support the new airports by relieving congestion, or future congestion. This seems like quite a waste to me to just rip them up entirely.

It is wasteful -- but why is it any less wasteful to close perfectly good terminal facilities at those same airports in the name of supporting some politicians' boondoggles? (DEN falls in this category far more than AUS.) And I don't feel that general aviation has any more right to convenient facilities than commercial passengers.

 

[JS]

To be honest, it would likely have been more cost-effective at the time to take property around DAL to expand the airfield and come up with a runway configuration similar to ATL and LAX. At some point, the terminal complex would have required replacement, but DFW ended up building all-new terminals anyway. GSW/ACF could have been used for cargo and/or passenger operations as demand required.

[post="260662"][/post]​

You have got to be kidding.

 

[sfb]

You have got to be kidding.

Got anything factual to back that up?

 

[swflyer]

.
It is wasteful -- but why is it any less wasteful to close perfectly good terminal facilities at those same airports in the name of supporting some politicians' boondoggles?  (DEN falls in this category far more than AUS.)  And I don't feel that general aviation has any more right to convenient facilities than commercial passengers.

[post="260720"][/post]​

In the case of Denver, wasteful is in the eye of the homeowner.
There are HUGE new housing developments where Stapleton, and Lowery AFB for that matter, once were.

Know there were "Big Plans" for Mueller, but haven't heard or been around to see any.

BTW, expanding DAL was NEVER an option. The CAB was the entity that was forcing Dallas and Ft. Worth to come up with a 'regional solution'. This is another "background" piece covered by that link I posted earlier.

 

[sfb]

In the case of Denver, wasteful is in the eye of the homeowner.
There are HUGE new housing developments where Stapleton, and Lowery AFB for that matter, once were.

Yes -- but does that recapture any of the $5 billion or so that was spent on building DIA?

BTW, expanding DAL was NEVER an option. The CAB was the entity that was forcing Dallas and Ft. Worth to come up with a 'regional solution'. This is another "background" piece covered by that link I posted earlier.

I agree, expanding DAL was not an option -- specifically because Fort Worth never would have agreed to it. The CAB didn't care how the two cities came up with a regional solution -- they just refused to continue subsidizing two facilities when the region's traffic really only required one. The location, landside design, original runway configuration, etc. of DFW are all an obvious political compromise -- equally inconvenient to Dallas and Fort Worth.

My point was that expanding DAL would have been more cost-effective. It certainly was not possible politically.

 

[JS]

When you say that Love Field would have been more cost-effective, you must be thinking only of physical construction costs.

The cost of condemning land around the airport to build two additional runways would be astronomical.

 

[sfb]

The cost of condemning land around the airport to build two additional runways would be astronomical.

Yep, but they spent money on taking thousands of acres at the site of DFW, building several all-new runways, constructing all-new terminals, roads, etc. The amount of property they would have needed to condemn to the northeast (by 31R/13L) would have been relatively small. On the other side of the airfield, they would have had to take a strip several hundred feet wide and reroute the railroad tracks. Still, in 1970, the cost would likely have been significantly less than building DFW.

Honestly, it would have depended on what real estate values were like around Love Field in the late 1960's, but if they were anything like Houston, you probably could have picked up a couple of city blocks for a million or less. I acknowledge that it was politically impossible given the need for Fort Worth to agree to any plan, but I still hold to my point that the political solution they reached probably wasn't the most cost-effective one.

 

[biztraveller29]

I'm sorry, I just read 5 pages of arguments back and forth, and I'm trying to figure out why I, as a citizen of Los Angeles, cannot book a ticket to fly to DAL on Southwest (well, not directly, at least), and why a citizen of, say, Jackson Mississippi can do just that. Heck, I'd even be willing to do a one-stop BUR-PHX-DAL! And yet, because of the damned Wright Ammendment (and subsequent Shelby Ammendment, which, as one poster has pointed out, proves that laws CAN be changed) I am forced to travel to DFW if I want a non-stop (or even a one-stop). Hmmm... I wonder who that benefits?

Every time I've wanted to (or needed to) go to Dallas, I've wanted to go to DALLAS. Not Fort Worth. Not Plano. Not Arlington. Say it with me... DALLAS. And guess which airport is most convenient? That's right.... DAL! And yet.... the chosen few of ABQ, OKC, LIT, JAN, MSY, etc etc can book a ticket and fly there. But for the rest of us unwashed masses? We have to figure out a connection city, buy two separate ticket, etc etc. And LUV employees have to do the same thing to go anywhere on company business!

The Los Angeles basin has FIVE commercial airports serving passengers, and LAX has had RECORD passenger traffic lately. What is DFW so afraid of? Competition? They keep saying "WN can move here". What about ditching the Wright Ammendment, huh DFW? If you're so great, won't people just flock to DFW, restrictions or no?

My guess is that they know that all those facilities and that huge white elephant known as "Terminal D" won't make a bit of difference to people whose goal is to get to DALLAS. It's "Location, location, location" people, and DFW & AA know it.

Hell, I can even fly to DCA non-stop from LAX now. And I CAN book a one-stop to LGA. How about just getting rid of the ticketing restrictions so those of us outside the "golden zone" can book one-stops to DAL? Surely DFW & AA can't be afraid of that, can they?

 

[funguy2]

So, there is a double standard...

Teterboro, Van Nyes, DuPage (near Chicago) and others have an "excuse" to disallow commercial traffic. If Airline XYZ wanted to fly from their airport, why aren't they required to provide the facilities?

If DAL is required to remain a commercial airport as long as its open, so long as an airline wishes to fly there, why wouldn't non-commercial airports be required to develop the facilities?

Maybe I am knit-picking here... but there is a double-standard here... (beyond the Wright Amendment) and I am trying to get my head around it.

 

[sfb]

So, there is a double standard...

Sort of, but not quite.

Teterboro, Van Nyes, DuPage (near Chicago) and others have an "excuse" to disallow commercial traffic. If Airline XYZ wanted to fly from their airport, why aren't they required to provide the facilities?

Because the facilities don't currently exist. Airline X can't go to the PANYNJ or LAWA and say, "You will build these terminals for us" because that decision is considered to be within the purview of the airport operator. If WN wanted to go into CLT, they can't demand that the airport build a terminal or concourse extension just to suit them. In recent years, however, DOT has moved to ensure that airports make facilities available to new entrants and that equal terms are generally offered to all tenants. They have also pressured airports to move away from exclusive-use gate leases.

If DAL is required to remain a commercial airport as long as its open, so long as an airline wishes to fly there, why wouldn't non-commercial airports be required to develop the facilities?

Because the terminal facilities already existed, were in good condition, and were occupied by a tenant. The City of Dallas actually demolished most of the Braniff concourse at DAL a couple of years back specifically so that no one would be able to lay claim to it in future. The rest of the terminal is under leases and I believe the old Legend terminal is privately-owned.

Maybe I am knit-picking here... but there is a double-standard here... (beyond the Wright Amendment) and I am trying to get my head around it.

You might be nit-picking, but definitely not knit-picking (look up "nit" to understand the meaning). The difference is that DAL had existing terminal facilities which they could not arbitrarily close while there was a tenant who wished to use them.

 

[RowUnderDCA]

It has more to do with the fact that DAL is a Part 139 certificated airport-- certificated for Part 121 service. The Feds cant make an airport owner build it, and sign up for it, but once you do the combination of certificate and federal grant obligations (especially if it has a land obligation) can lock up the airport forever. Now, the FAA has special procedures for replacement.

DAL could be an interesting case for a special circumstance. Dallas should have either closed it or surrendered its certificate in the 70's when it could have. It could have gotten in back later, if it wanted.